Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive April 11th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Order_of_St_Nicholas.jpg

[edit]

File uploaded on pl-wiki by user Alexvonf, where similiar pictures depicting orders and medals were found to be copyright violations from: [1] . The same style, size and background as for files deleted from pl-wiki makes Alexvonf's autorship of this file dubious as well, therefore I suggest deleting it. This file can be compared with pictures from given webpage for similarities. Masur (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Masur works with media files on Polish Wikipedia and is very reliable when it comes to finding copyright violation. Author was warned to stop uploading files with questionable authorship. File is very similar to image from website provided by Masur. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree with Lukasz Lukomski - file is very similar to image from website, therefore I suggest deleting it. Karol007 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree. Obvious copyright violation. Gophi (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Since the copyright violation has ben proved beyond any doubt, the re is no reason to keep it here any longer. It,s sad, that such cases still exist, despite the stress laid on the copyright. Kicior99 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Latvia_Bear_Killer.jpg

[edit]

File uploaded on pl-wiki by user Alexvonf, where similiar pictures depicting orders and medals were found to be copyright violations from: [2] . The same style, size and background as for files deleted from pl-wiki makes Alexvonf's autorship of this file dubious as well, therefore I suggest deleting it. This file can be compared with pictures from given webpage for similarities. Masur (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Masur works with media files on Polish Wikipedia and is very reliable when it comes to finding copyright violation. Author was warned to stop uploading files with questionable authorship. File is very similar to image from website provided by Masur. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree with Lukasz Lukomski - file is very similar to image from website, therefore I suggest deleting it. Karol007 21:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree. Obvious copyright violation. Gophi (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Danilo1.jpg

[edit]

File uploaded on pl-wiki by user Alexvonf, where similiar pictures depicting orders and medals were found to be copyright violations from: [3] . The same style, size and background as for files deleted from pl-wiki makes Alexvonf's autorship of this file dubious as well, therefore I suggest deleting it. This file can be compared with pictures from given webpage for similarities. Masur (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Masur works with media files on Polish Wikipedia and is very reliable when it comes to finding copyright violation. Author was warned to stop uploading files with questionable authorship. File is very similar to image from website provided by Masur. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree with Lukasz Lukomski - file is very similar to image from website, therefore I suggest deleting it. Karol007 21:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree. Obvious copyright violation. Gophi (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Penis_Head_f.jpg

[edit]

Yet another penis photo, with nothing new present. Same can be said of File:Penis f.jpg by the same uploader. Tabercil (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MiroslavLajcak.jpg

[edit]

The licensing is obscure:

This photo is from the official web site of the Office of the High Representative. It is the official portrait of Miroslav Lajcak and since it is an international organization it is public domain.

is not a valid reason for this image beeing a free image. Also the licensing with Creative Commons is not reasonable. Also its derivative work File:Miroslav Lajcak.jpg is nominated. --Martin H. (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tianasquare.jpg

[edit]

If I'm not wrong, this is a fair use image and how is it licensed under GFDL and CC-BY? Ben.MQ (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, obvious copyviol; not original photo by uploader. (Already on en:as historic image fair use.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rad1.jpg

[edit]

This is wrong, Category I-WHITE is definitly complete white --W!B: (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) --W!B: (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reason to delete, the image could be improved. However, I'm going to delete it anyway for missing essential source information. It is licensed under GFDL, but the author is not even mentioned, so attribution is impossible. –Tryphon☂ 10:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 10:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Belgacom_TV.png

[edit]

Probably not owned by uploader. MBisanz talk 06:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Blason ville de Berlin (Berlin).svg

[edit]

This is not the coat of arms of Berlin. This is the coat of arms of Appenzell Innerrhoden.

Das ist nicht das Wappen von Berlin. Der in diesen Wappen dargestellte Bär, ist der aus dem Appenzeller Wappen. Siehe File:Wappen Appenzell Innerrhoden matt.svg --Jwnabd (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep "Das Landeswappen zeigt in silbernem (weißem) Schild einen rot bewehrten und rot gezungten, aufrecht schreitenden schwarzen Bären." Which is correct - it does not matter what other cities do. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that both cities have the same coat of arms, but I left a message on fr:Discussion Projet:Blasons so that knowledgeable people can give advice. Teofilo (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The request does not mention any source about what the COA should be. If it is not the COA of Berlin, I'm afraid you'll have to request the deletion of many other images in City and state emblems of Berlin, and inform the authorities of Berlin that they should remove it from buildings like File:Rathaus Schoeneberg Wappen Berlin.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm helps no one. Hekerui (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a disruptive off-topic comment helps no one, whereas addressing the topic and making some effort to try and help research it hopefully does. Anyway, I am not sure if you are playing some game or if you missed the actual point, so I will be more direct : 1. It would be useful if you provided a source, or offered a rationale, showing either that the COA of Berlin is different from this, or that Berlin has no COA, or otherwise supporting the opinion that this may not be the COA of Berlin. 2. In the absence of a source, it can be relevant to consider not only this image but also other images that may apparently suggest a connection with Berlin (links provided above propose some images). Although that is not proof that this image is valid, it is an indication that it might be, so in this context and if there is no additional information to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to keep this image. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bär ist nun mal nicht gleich Bär, vorallem nicht in der Heraldik. Deswegen gibt es auch amtliche Muster in den Gesetzesblättern. Hier ist das amtliche Muster des Berliner Wappens. Abgesehen davon das die Schildform falsch ist, würde auch die Krone fehlen. Der Bär in dem zur Löschung beantragten Wappen ist lediglich eine Kopie des Bärens aus dem Wappen von Appenzell Innerrhoden. --Jwnabd (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin bear
Berlin bear
Jwnabd is right: this is not the coat of arms of Berlin (that is here), it is a coat of arms showing a bear. The coa of Berlin does not show just any bear, but this bear (also portrayed on the right). The bear was different in historic coats of arms of Berlin, but this is not a historic coa of Berlin, only something that was made up by taking a different bear (the bear of the Swiss canton Appenzell Innerrhoden) and putting it in a shield (escutcheon). Besides showing the wrong bear, it also misses the crown on top of the shield which is part of the coa of Berlin as specified by law (de:Gesetz über die Hoheitszeichen des Landes Berlin): “Das Landeswappen zeigt in silbernem Schilde einen aufgerichteten schwarzen Bären mit roter Zunge und roten Krallen. Auf dem Schild ruht eine goldene, fünfblätterige Laubkrone, deren Stirnreif aus Mauerwerk mit einem Tor in der Mitte ausgestattet ist.” The official design for the Berlin coa is here, as Jwnabd has already pointed out. Summary: the coat of arms of Berlin is exactly defined by law, and File:Blason ville de Berlin (Berlin).svg is not the coat of arms of Berlin. So  Delete. Or at least give it another filename that does not suggest it is the correct coa of Berlin. --Rosenzweig δ 09:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This bear and this bear are the same : Argent, a bear sable langued and armed gules. The crest isn't absolutely requisite. --Bvs-aca (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The crown is necessary as described in the law above: “Auf dem Schild ruht eine goldene, fünfblätterige Laubkrone, deren Stirnreif aus Mauerwerk mit einem Tor in der Mitte ausgestattet ist.”, roughly translated as On top of the shield there is a golden crown with five leaves ... Without this crown, it's not the official coa of Berlin. And the two bears are quite obviously not the same, as can be easily seen, they only have the same heraldic description. That does not make them identical. --Rosenzweig δ 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment perhaps it would be better to rename the file "Black bear, armed and tongued red on a silver shield", leaving the responsibility to caption it as a coat of arms of a particular city to the Wikimedia projects' users. Teofilo (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Nothing wrong with the image itself. Feel free to clarify the description and/or request renaming of the file. –Tryphon☂ 10:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:StaffanJacobson2.jpg

[edit]

Unused image! Falls under COM:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose --Bongoman (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Kept as having an OTRS-ticket and being used on two pages on :sv. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BosniaPeaceSigning.jpg

[edit]

According to the original upload log the image was taken from NATO press Service. Thus images are nonfree. Also the collor version File:Dayton.jpg, which is unsourced and licensed as an work of the governemnt of Serbia and Montenegro. --Martin H. (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Collages of Jens-Uwe Ritter

[edit]
Deutsch: All diese Bilder sind Collagen, die von Jens-Uwe Ritter hochgeladen worden sind. Sie sind offenbar von ihm selbst erstellt worden, jedoch unter Verwendung fremder Bilder. Diese Bilder entstammen seinen eigenen Angaben zufolge aus der Wikipedia bzw. Commons. Eine genauere Dokumentation über die verwendeten Bilder fehlt, so dass sich teilweise daraus urheberrechtliche Probleme ergeben. Insgesamt stellt sich aber die Frage, inwiefern die Bilder in unseren Projektrahmen fallen. Sie werden nirgends innerhalb unserer Projekte genutzt und es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass sich das jemals ändern sollte. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English: All these images are collages that have been uploaded by Jens-Uwe Ritter. They have apparently been composed by himself by using other images from our projects. Unfortunately, the use of other images is nowhere documented. Some photographs that have been used are most likely still copyrighted. In all cases it is quite questionable whether the images fall into COM:SCOPE as we do not collect artwork by non-notable artists. They are apparently nowhere used within the scope of our projects and this is unlikely to change. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It fits more or less the "broad educational use", as one may imagine that some of them might be used in a classroom. But no attempt has been made to insert this work into Wikibooks. Also I expect a teacher to be able to give the painter's name when displaying a painting to pupils. Also the deletion will not prevent the public to watch these pictures on the uploader's own website. So my conclusion is  Delete. Teofilo (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English: Another problem is that I don't think the uploader has really understood what a free licence is and what it means. He obviously was not able to grasp what Commons is about. One of the few messages he wrote contained that he thought that everything here on Commons is public domain. And each time somebody tried to tell him that detailled sources are needed (especially since he sometimes used material that was not to be used that way) he started to yell around, calling people names and saying that we have to immediately remove his images (which means he did not understand that the licences he put on the images are not retractable).  Delete -- Cecil (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsch: Ein anderes Problem wäre, dass ich nicht glaube, dass Jens-Uwe Ritter wirklich verstanden hat, was eine freie Lizenz ist und was sie bedeutet. Er war bisher offensichtlich nicht fähig zu begreifen, um was es bei Commons geht. Eine seiner wenigen Nachrichten enthielt die Meinung, hier auf Commons wäre alles gemeinfrei. Und jedes Mal, wenn ihm jemand versuchte beizubringen, dass Quellen eine Mussbedingung sind (gerade, weil er ja öfter Material für seine Kollagen verwendet hat, das eben in seiner Art der Verwendung eine Urheberrechtsverletzung ist), begann er ausfallend zu werden, und verlangte, dass man seine Bilder wieder löscht (nicht verstehend, dass er mit der Lizenz, die er seinen Kollagen verpasst hat, das Nutzungsrecht an andere unwiderrufbar hergegeben hat). -- Cecil (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I blocked the uploader for three months because of repeated behaviour/harassmen (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJens-Uwe_Ritter&diff=20184591&oldid=20168814). --Polarlys (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that he has no manners is visible from all his talk-contributions. But at least he still had the chance to fullfill Godwin’s Law before you blocked him. -- Cecil (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, all his uploads. The uploader obviously neither understood the scope of this project nor basic licensing issues. Tired of his hate speech btw. --Polarlys (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Schema_cinematico_e_dinamico_della_pista_centrifuga.gif

[edit]

OTRS permission pending since December, but I cannot find the ticket. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Trama_Sidekick.JPG

[edit]

OTRS pending since December but I cannot find the ticket. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Frauenkirchepanorama1.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation by w:en:User:NetguruDD. Author of this picture is w:de:User:Cepheiden, see w:de:file:Brühlsche Terrasse.jpg. --Cepheiden (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete because en:User talk:NetguruDD shows no convincing answer from him to enquiries. I am trying to figure out what is the correct procedure to deal with filenames. What I suggest is
a) A new upload to Commons should be made from w:de:file:Brühlsche Terrasse.jpg.
b) File:Frauenkirchepanorama1.jpg should be marked with {{Duplicate}}. Following the instructions written there would ensure that a robot scans all Wikimedia projects using the picture and changes the filename.
Teofilo (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is my preferred procedure, too. So i would upload, the file again and mark the old file. thanks. --Cepheiden (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, new file under File:Dresden, bruehlsche Terrasse 2004.jpg. --Cepheiden (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
w:de:file:Brühlsche Terrasse.jpg. is delete after transferred to commons today --Cepheiden (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by Cecil as duplicate. Yann (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Boutros_Boutros-Ghali.jpg

[edit]

It's probably not a work of the US gov; it looks like the US gov just used a standard publicity picture Prosfilaes (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/detail/860/0086013.html. The US department of state and embassies indeed using photographs from other sources. Do not copy images from US-DOS or embassy websites untill you can not assure, that the photo was created by an U.S. Government empolyee. --Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fanta_Furufuru_Shaker.jpg

[edit]
English: Derivative work.
Esperanto: Fotografaĵo de ujo kun probable ne libera desegno.
Русский: Производная работа.
AVRS (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The artwork on the can is copyrighted. –Tryphon☂ 10:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:R100-coupe.jpg

[edit]

The source is listed as "Old promotional material that has lapsed in copyright". This is ambiguous, and considering the date is 1971, I doubt this. The OTRS tag has also been pending since December 2008 but I cannot find the ticket. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Missing source information, wrong license, no permission. –Tryphon☂ 10:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Emerald Emme.jpg

[edit]

Uploaded from http://emeralddragon.nm.ru/, which says:

"Да, кстати, все работы здесь являются моей авторской собственностью, просьба не использовать без спросу."

("Yes, by the way, all works here are my author's property. Please do not use without permisson.")

--Beaumain (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 10:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Emerald Kraft.jpg

[edit]

Uploaded from http://emeralddragon.nm.ru/, which says:

"Да, кстати, все работы здесь являются моей авторской собственностью, просьба не использовать без спросу."

("Yes, by the way, all works here are my author's property. Please do not use without permisson.")

--Beaumain (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 10:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SultanAzlanShah.gif

[edit]

I have doubts it is "own work". Similar picture available on http://al-brangi.blogspot.com/2009/03/titah-sultan-perakcontohi-kemuliaan.html Teofilo (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Muhyiddin-yassin.jpg

[edit]

I doubt it is "own work", as exacty the same file is available on http://pinkturtle2.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/3820/ Teofilo (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, please use the copyvio template for such cases. --Polarlys (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Please don't edit a closed request.[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Seg_Hwa_Logo.jpeg

[edit]

Quite straightforward school logo, but I think an Email from the school should be sent to COM:OTRS to confirm that the creator is our uploader. Teofilo (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, average logo without permission upload --Polarlys (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

abdulbaset qur'an recitation

[edit]

I believe that all these sound files should be deleted because they are creative work copyrighted and their author (w:Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad) died in 1988 and is therefore not PD.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The files come from this website (where there is no indication that they were released under a free license), and the original uploader just mentioned that the reciter is not alive anymore and the reciter distributed his recitations free of charge. Free of charge does not equal free license. –Tryphon☂ 10:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ich_in_Kronenzeitung.jpg

[edit]

This file seems to be cropped out from the austrian newspaper "Kronenzeitung". Permission is missing. Thus copyright violation. High Contrast (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Borniert_(Koblenz).jpg

[edit]

Seems to be out of Commons:Project scope. Commons is not a private photo album. Furthermore this image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Praha_Fenstersturzfenster.jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope. Commons is not a private photo album. Furthermore this image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, one of several private uploads to promote himself --Polarlys (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Berlitzdevise.jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope. High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, one of several private uploads to promote himself --Polarlys (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Heart2.jpg

[edit]

No valid source. en.wiki can't be the original source. Who's the author of this famous Sacred-Heart image? Damiens.rf 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chkn1HOUSE.jpg

[edit]

No Free license is seen on http://www.poultryhub.org/index.php/Image:Chkn1HOUSE.jpg . Relationship between 4 people : Susan Powell, Book Publisher, Uploader on source website, uploader on Wikimedia Commons is unclear. Teofilo (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 10:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

DO NOT DELETE . THIS USER CONTROLS THE COPY RIGHTS


File:AWSOME.JPG

[edit]

Promotional content for one Ruben Valentino; contains a collage of images for sources are not given Tabercil (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This looks like a copy vio to me. Does the uploader hold the copyright? Probably not since its a non-free fair use image. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Waraqat2.jpg

[edit]

Description says the image is Waraqat Group logo, links in lower corners possibly indicate it was taken from a web page. It is unlikely the image is uploader's own work and that they are the copyright holder. --Abanima (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Logo, mostly text, but some parts are eligible. Out of scope anyway. –Tryphon☂ 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Waraqat.jpg

[edit]

Description says the image is Waraqat Group logo, links in lower corners possibly indicate it was taken from a web page. It is unlikely the image is uploader's own work and that they are the copyright holder. --Abanima (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by Cecil as dupe. Yann (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tab_prem_5oro.gif

[edit]

It isn't used, doesn't seem to have a use Jonjames1986 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete And it might be a copyright violation (if eligible). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. DW. Yann (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Casa_Confusione.jpg

[edit]

It isn't used, poorly named Jonjames1986 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per Infrogmation. –Tryphon☂ 10:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Haze.JPG

[edit]

worthless and unused Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Very basic cartoon portrait. Usefulness unclear. Teofilo (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kokaj.png

[edit]

Isn't used, poor res, no categories Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Duplicate of File:Kokaj nga veri-perendimi.png. Teofilo (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Dupe. Yann (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Brie_église_vitrail.JPG

[edit]

Stained glass. Does not seem old enough to be in the public domain. Teofilo (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L'église venait effectivement d'être rénovée et c'est le maire de la commune qui était très fier de me montrer le résultat. Je n'ai compris que récemment que les vitraux modernes étaient également considérés comme œuvres d'art. Donc, OK pour la suppression et dommage pour l'article [4]. Il est probable que vous trouviez par ci, par là, une autre photo de vitrail récent à supprimer. Cordialement. --Père Igor (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oui c'est bien dommage pour l'article. Teofilo (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flag of Tucuman province in Argentina.gif

[edit]

This is no longer the flag of Tucuman province. In fact, currently Tucuman doesn't have any flag (See below for some URL's). Can you make a bot that removes the entry of all articles? so the file is not deleted and remains like something historic. --Alakasam (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La plantilla fue mal usada: no se puede borrar una imagen libre solo porque es de una bandera vieja y sin uso (en la provincia). --190.137.121.134 16:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: There's no copyright violation, and historic flags are within project scope just as current ones. If the flag is no longer used, then it must be removed manually, on a case by case basis. There are numbers of ways where such a flag may still be correctly mentioned and used in an article. Belgrano (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Siena_flickr01.jpg

[edit]

This is a very poor quality image which never passed flickr review. It is completely unused on Wikipedia. It should be deleted since there is no loss to Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Manuel_Fraga_as_president_of_Galicia.jpg

[edit]

Source web (a blog-like web site supporting Spanish Socialist Party) does not seem to hold the copyright of this image Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete sadly. I have never seen a web site say: "© Copyright. 1998 - 2004. www.losgenoveses.net. No rights reserved". No Rights Reserved...that is unbelievable. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Dodo (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tripoli_Medina_2.jpg

[edit]

Image is Not used on Wikipedia and Flickr review did not approve it. I think a deletion is preferable in this case since there is no loss to Commons here. Leoboudv (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File was not reviewed. Unverified copyright.  Delete.--Kwj2772 (msg) 05:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jesus_Christ_-_Sacred_Heart.jpg

[edit]

Author not identified for this famous image. Some evidence of PD-Old? Damiens.rf 19:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as we do not know who the author was and if {{PD-art}} indeed applies. Similarly we do not know how far truecatholic.org can be trusted in their general assertion as they are most likely not the copyright holder of this image. I'm afraid that there is currently no other choice than to delete this image according to COM:PRP. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sagrado_coração_de_jesus.jpg

[edit]

The file is listed as public domain, but lacks verification - no publication date, creator etc. is mentioned. Hekerui (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image is a photoshopped photo of an old print belonging to my family for 3 generations. there is no name of author or any editor mark. so i believe that it perfectly may remain in public domain. regards! tetraktys (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as no proof is presented that this image falls into {{PD-art}} or {{PD-old}}. Even if this image was published 90 years ago (3 generations), it is very well possible that its author died less than 70 years ago. Given all this, I'm afraid that this image has to be deleted according to COM:PRP. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LOGO_DIRECT_ENERGIE.jpg

[edit]

It isn't used and has no categories, if you upload an image, use it Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "unused" is not valid reason to delete, if permission is verified by OTRS,  Keep.--Kwj2772 (msg) 13:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted along with File:LOGO LONG HALO1.jpg as both images were uploaded and tagged OTRS pending since July 2008. Apparently, a permission email was never sent or those received were insufficient. Whenever a valid OTRS permission is received, these images can be restored as Direct Energy, the apparent owner of this logo, appears to be notable and its logos are thereby within COM:SCOPE even if they are not used. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Eglise_saint-louis_vritrail_2.jpg

[edit]

According to http://paroisses-centre-nantes.cef.fr/ndbp/documents/PLAQUETTE22juillet2007.pdf this stained glass is dated 1950. Not in Public Domain. Please delete per COM:FOP#France Teofilo (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Acquigny_-_Vitrail.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighed artwork without permission from stained glass artist François-Émile Décorchemont. French, 1880 - 1971 http://www.clemusart.com/explore/artist.asp?searchText=fran%E7ois&tab=1&recNo=11 Teofilo (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deletion, I didn't realize the artist was dead so recently. It's a mistake.

Regards, Efcuse (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

All works by artist Alfred Manessier ( - 1993)

[edit]


copyvio : fr:Alfred Manessier died in 1993. Teofilo (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis "la personne qui a créé" les sept premiers fichiers à partir de diapositives anciennes, afin d'illustrer les articles concernant le peintre Alfred Manessier sur WP fr.. Sachant bien qu'il n'est pas possible d'introduire des images de peintures, j'ai pensé que des images de vitraux, placés dans des églises, lieux publics, pouvaient convenir, d'autant plus qu'il s'agit de vues d'ensemble, soit partielles (Hem) soit très partielles (Moutier), de ces églises, ou de détails. J'avoue que je ne suis pas au fait de la juridiction dans ce domaine. Sans doute serait-il possible d'obtenir une autorisation auprès des enfants du peintre, Jean-Baptiste et Christine Manessier, mais c'est nettement au-dessus de mes forces. Alea jacta.

User:Michel-georges bernard, 18.04.09, 18h56

All images that have been taken in France have been deleted because COM:FOP is missing for France and the copyright of the original works is not yet expired. Two of the images, File:Alfred Manessier.Moutier.1.jpg and File:Moutier. Adam.1.jpg, are from Switzerland which has COM:FOP. I quote from SR 231.1 Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte:

Art. 27 Werke auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund
1 Ein Werk, das sich bleibend an oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet, darf abgebildet werden; die Abbildung darf angeboten, veräussert, gesendet oder sonst wie verbreitet werden.
2 Die Abbildung darf nicht dreidimensional und auch nicht zum gleichen Zweck wie das Original verwendbar sein.

There are two conditions that must be met according to this law:

  • The work must be on allgemein zugänglichem Grund (general accessible ground) and
  • The derived work must not be usable for the very same purpose as the original work.

I am not familiar with Swiss case law. This sounds as publically accessible churches could be considered as general accessible ground. And as the original work is three-dimensional part of a building, I fail to see how a photograph could serve the same purpose. Given all this, I am inclined to keep these two images but everyone who is more familiar with Swiss case law is welcome to reopen a deletion request in case my interpretation was too liberal. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya.jpg

[edit]

Why should this image be in the public domain? It´s from 1953 so the author can´t be dead for more than 70 years... --Chaddy (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Subject was executed in 1941. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, than there is a failure in the image description or at least a lack of clarity.
But that doesn´t change anything with the license situation. There is no proof for PD however. Chaddy (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as this is one of the unfortunate cases where apparently an image was already public domain but became copyrighted again since January 1st, 2008. Originally, it was tagged with {{PD-Russia}} that in this formerly version refered to a retroactive Russian copyright law of 1993 according to which some works published before January 1st, 1954 were considered public domain. When this license template became obsolete due to the Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on January 1st, 2008 it was inappropriately replaced by {{PD-old}} which does not apply in this case. More informations about this development can be found here. According to the description of this image, it was published on 23 October 1953 within the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, volume 23. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Patriarch-athenagoras.jpg

[edit]

see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FIDES --Cherubino (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC) ps: same File:Jozef-tomko.jpg, File:Karl-Rahner.jpg[reply]

Deleted as according to the cited deletion request FIDES images cannot be assumed to used for any purpose as apparently derivative works and commercial use are not permitted without further agreements. These images didn't use the obsoleted {{FIDES}} license tag but {{Bild-by}}, {{Cc-by-2.0}} (without any rationale), and {{Attribution}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:GoodFridayBishop.JPG

[edit]

According to http://www.sj.org/parish/history.html the church was renovated in 2001-2002. Give evidence that the artwork is older or crop the picture, please. The artwork is suspected to be copyrighted Teofilo (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No Freedom of panorama for artistic works (other than buildings) in the US MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the file was accidently left undeleted when this DR was closed. I support MichaelMaggs' conclusion and just deleted it for real. Additional notice: The church was originally designed by architect Edward F. Wirtz of New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1955. That means that even if the renovation in 2001–2002 didn't change the shown artwork, it cannot be older than 1955. The uploader is free, as indicated by Teofilo, to upload a cropped version which does not include the artwork. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/04/11&oldid=26832903"